Dear Flavio,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. Your invited me to read your essay and compare and contrast. It's difficult for me to summarize in a few words. My last essay, The Nature of Mind, offers nine pages that address the issue of intuition, which you appear down on. You seem to lump determinism and absolute simultaneity, local realism and conservation laws into the same category of 'prejudice'. My current essay argues for absolute simultaneity, and I elsewhere argue for local realism, while I have a more nuanced view of determinism, and I have argued against conservation as a consequence of symmetry, as all symmetries I am aware of are approximate.

I recently watched a YouTube discussion between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia, a goodly portion of which dealt with Derrida, Foucault, and other deconstructionists and radical relativists. For a number of reasons I feel this nonsense is beginning to infect physics, probably because physics is chaotic in the extreme, based (in my opinion) on fundamental false assumptions and prejudices that have endured for about a century, both in relativity and QM.

Once one discards intuition, one is left with 'word hash', combining words/equations in 'narratives' [see Gibbs] and having no idea how to discriminate reality from story. My current essay focuses on one non-intuitive narrative, while previous essays address other such instances. As you spend quite a bit of time on Bell I will address Bell.

You refer to Bell's theorem as "momentous no-go theorem" and spend a couple of pages on his logic. If you look at his first paper, his first equation determines the outcome: A = +/-1, B = +/-1, where A and B are measurements on Stern-Gerlach. This is based on the (prejudiced) assumption of quantum qubits. You clearly state that QM provides only probabilistic predictions. Many-body experiments on spin yield qubit outcomes, as should be expected. Stern-Gerlach does not yield qubit outcomes but smeared results that match 3D spin dynamics in an inhomogeneous field. However Pauli's mathematical projection of qubit mechanics: O|+> = +|+>, O|-> = -|-> is Bell's prejudiced assumption of reality. In other words Bell claims to look for a classical (local variable) description of Stern-Gerlach, but then constrains the problem to quantum results based on the mathematical projection of Pauli, not on the empirical results of Stern-Gerlach.

Feynman later put the final nail in this coffin by assuming that his favorite two-slit photon experiment could be carried over directly to a two-slit spin analog (the SG experiment). Of course the same equations apply, because he's making the same mathematical projection, but the actual physics of the photon in two-slits is vastly different from the physics of atoms in a homogeneous magnetic field, and Feynman's extended SG model has never been tested.

Since Feynman and Bell's math and logic have been accepted as gospel, local realism has been excluded from physics. A no-go theorem based on atoms in a magnetic field, constrained to never-tested single-qubit spin results, is then "proved" by photon-based experiments which actually do produce two-state results: on/off detections.

I repeat - the entire industry is based on the erroneous assumption that the results of the Stern-Gerlach atomic experiments are +1 and -1 deflections, "tested" by photonic experiments that use +1 and 0 detections. The atomic data produced by Stern-Gerlach clearly conflicts with Bell's initial assumption, but instead of trying sophisticated tests of Stern-Gerlach using modern technology the whole entanglement industry is based on 1922 experiments that clearly do not yield +1 and -1 results. The confusion of 1920s quantum mechanics is locked in. Here is your fundamental 'prejudice'.

My suggestion is if one wishes to 'deconstruct' physics, look for the basic assumptions that violate intuition and that lead to nonsense. Of course that is dangerous for those toiling in the establishment, so generalizations are preferred.

This is how I would contrast your approach with my approach.

Good luck in the contest and in your careers.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you for the answer. I accept your point about not being able to represent Einstein given the space limitation. I also agree that Poincare's conventionalism has long-since been surpassed by Einstein's relativity. In fact a lot of people fail to understand the difference in Poincare's philosophical view and therefore claim he discovered relativity before Einstein. He was almost there but not quite. It is easy for us to see the right idea now but at that time conventionalism must have seemed like a reasonable alternative to some.

Dear Peter,

Special relativity means different things to different people (I know this from a year of discussions). In your opinion light is to define a 'preferred' reference frame. I cannot believe this makes sense in reality, and as I point out, the nonsense flows from space-time symmetry [i.e., light as 'preferred' frame] and vanishes with energy-time asymmetry.

You're also of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to appreciate your point. You claim to understand quantum gravity; I have an understanding that I'm sure differs from yours.

For many I talked with last year, the first statement that they disagree with tends to shut them down, rather than try to understand how their belief may be reinterpreted. Although quantum mechanics has probably a dozen interpretations, almost all of which yield the same calculations, there is surprising resistance to an interpretation of special relativity that makes sense, but differs from the received wisdom. I'm disappointed that you "didn't dig into the remainder of the paper" but with 200 essays, it's hard to study them all.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about GA and I do not see an E8-type assignment of GA product terms to the standard model as meaningful, so we do agree on the significance of GA, but not on all physics. On your thread you were happy to hear about Arthur's "Understanding geometric algebra for electromagnetic theory". I suggest after you read this book you may wish to reread my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Bashir,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

You cover many aspects of physics in your essay. I interpret your "indivisible atom" to be the fundamental "substance", which you seem to postulate to be the photon. You say all other composite particles have two key categories, "charge and neutral". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields in electromagnetic fields, as described in equations (1) in my essay. Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting non-linear field. I do not believe this situation has been sufficiently explored, but mine is a minority view. Your intuition seems to be good, but I do not believe your basic model will take you as far as you wish to go. I encourage you in your efforts to understand nature.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Avtar,

I hope you will read my essay again, as I do not believe you have understood its potential significance for your work. You say your photon model depends on special relativity, as it matches the observed universe expansion data. But that is not based on the relativity of simultaneity as you imply. Cosmic microwave background on which all cosmology models are based is essentially Machian, and time is considered absolute with respect to this background. So contradicting "the relativity of simultaneity" does not seem relevant, as it is not involved in cosmological 'universe expansion' models. My impression is that you reached this point and decided not to go further. This is unfortunate, as Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations address the problem you address, but as "disturbances in the ether", with implied local energy density. Moreover, the recent observation of colliding neutron stars has demonstrated that gravitational disturbances propagate at the same speed as electromagnetic disturbances in the field. There is no "acceleration time" involved!

This Hertzian extension of Maxwell's theory envisions energy flow in a body, while Maxwell/Einstein envisions energy flow between systems. It seems de facto true that cosmology 'universe expansion' observations concern energy flows within the cosmological frame, not simultaneous flows between frames. (When one frame is the universe, what is the other frame?)

The problem here for your model, is that there is no acceleration. As soon as a disturbance occurs in the field, it immediately propagates at the speed of sound (the generic term for perfect fluid models) - no acceleration.

The significance for you is that this lack of acceleration required to reach speed c implies that light never has value v < c. Of course you refer to recent experiments in which light impinges on a semiconductor material and is absorbed, whence it photons become 'excitons'. In my opinion, such interactions are phonon-like, not pure photons, and are more likely explained as many-body phenomena, rather than pure photons. Of course I may be wrong, there is not enough information to determine this yet. If the phenomenon is essentially one of absorption and re-emission then formulas with the inverse square root of (1-(v/c)**2) are undefined. These are in most of your equations, since you seem to conceive of local 'photon' mass density as a material body, instead of the equivalent mass density of the disturbance in the field. The v-based equations for the photon are inappropriate in the Hertzian framework, which you seem not to have understood in my essay. In spite of this, and for reasons too long to include in a comment, I do find your Postulate 1 on page 5 to be is very astute and appropriate to the problem. It is that which first excited me about your essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I posted this on Gary D. Simpsom comments --

I try to justify +i and -i and the pure number i=c with c(metre)=i(sec)

Read the 4-square essay by Gary Simpson here https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Simpson_Four_Squares_rev00.pdf

here is my comment on Equation 1 below the double lines

======================================================

Every time I read your essay I seem to understand, it more and more.

I have a couple of questions about Equation 1

(a² + b² + c² + d²)u² = f²u²

A quote page 3

"The meaning of Equation 1 is that in a 4-D geometry, if a right triangle is constructed from an integer number of basis lengths in each of the four dimensions (a, b, c, and d), then the hypotenuse (f) that traverses through the 4-D space will also have an integer number of the basis lengths."

In Equation 1

Clearly it is the area u² that is common to both sides. Since its area's four squares when summed gives a transcendent "number" to both (a² + b² + c² +d²) and the area f². So if we have a 5-d hypotenuse cut from area f² within our 4-d space-time based on a well understood four squares geometry with an invariant length "the square root of s²". How do you avoid this "cut" being s and not the area s²=(a² + b² + c² +d²) which what equation 1 is saying. That the total area of (a² + b² + c² +d²) times the common area u² equals the common of area of u² times the area f². And ever body knows that (the sign of s²) times (the sign of area u²) equals (the sign of area u²) times (the sign of the area f²).

"Yes, I am treating an octonion as a bi-quaternion. That is what makes the multiplication table work.

The matrix multiplication is interesting. If the complex i commutes normally with the unit vectors, the coefficient matrix uses B. But if the complex i anti-commutes with the unit vectors, the coefficient matrix uses B*."

Bi-quaternions are just directed areas, that is, an area with a + and - sign. Clearly the matrix works because we have the invariant area ijk which then allows us to use octonian logic "based on + and - signs" which are attached to the bi-quaternions' areas. Hence in equation 1 the need of the 5-d hypotenuse cut from the area f² in our 4-d world which is based on an invariant four squares space-time summation.

Your 5-d area's four squares summation gives us the length of 4-d hypotenuse "the invariant length of the square root s²" not the total invariant area summation. You have 4-d areas with a 5-d hypotenuse length of the four squares for the area f². We have literally have a 5-d hypotenuse length within our 4-d space-time that any four square summation must obey. Since the area of u² is the one common transcendental number that bridges both sides of Equation 1, while the 5-d hypotenuse is an invariant 4-d length that any summation must have available to have closure for the geometry of the area of f².

A number (which is a perfect square) is the summation of four squares. If the area of f² is n square metres d²ct, then the physical manifestation of that area is a n invariant unit lengths of dct in our 4-d space-time. Not an area. We have an area f² on the right RHS, then on the LHS, equation 1 has a 5-d hypotenuse cut -- length c(metre) -- an invariant length that, by the 4-S theorem and equation 1 - each and every, any and, all - four square invariant summations must obey within our space-time.

Of course your multiplication matrices Eq 5.4 and Eq 5.5, clearly ties "i" with c(metre), via the common area u² which is on both sides, where we have units of the summation of transcendental i if we use the 4-S theorem on both sides at once but using your multiplication rules A,B*,A,B* for - and + sign matrix Eq 5.3, which is, after all, a + and - sign summation using "octonian" logic directed bi-quaternion areas i.e. the column [C,D], using Eq 4.1 about a stationary "ijk" invariant the area f², using f a length "the square root of the area of f²" to transverse the equal sign, Equation 1 uses a 5-d length, so cannot be associated 1-1 with a summation of four square labelled A,B,C,D thought of as a "a perfect number as an area". It is - the area u² - that is, the common "four square summation" i.e. the perfect square, that spans the equal sign using the 4-S theorem on both sides of Equation 1. A number (which is a perfect square) is the summation of four squares). Your Eq 5.3 is a dance using A,B,C,D where A,B,C,D do integral steps on directed areas ALL on the geometry of the area of ijk. More simply the dance is with the directed areas which have a + or - sign, that is, i and * are not moving, i.e. they don't lead! It is --- i and * --- that are stationary and it is Eq 5.3 that moves areas that equal + or - throughout a basic multiplication table page 6, clearly Eq 5.3 only gives the square root of s², a length not an area for how the multiplication table works in your matrices Eq 5.4 and Eq 5.5.

The full 4-S multiplication "of the areas on both sides of Equation 1" is:-

(the sign of the area (a²+b²+c²+d²)) times (the sign of the area u² on the LHS) equals (the sign of the area u² on the RHS) times (the sign of the area f²).

You will find Eq 5.3 octonian area + and - logic uses only the "square roots for the area u²" on the LHS for the bi-quaternions areas plus and minus signs attachment. That is, it is the common area of the transcendent "number" (a summation of four squares) which transverses the equal sign in Eq 1. as perfect numbers). Not your A,B*,A,B*,-,+ matrix dance Eq 5.3. which is after all + and - sign summation using "octonian" logic directed bi-quaternion areas i.e. the column [C,D]; clearly uses Eq 4.1 a stationary "ijk" invariant the area f².

More simply, the area of f² is ijk equals -1 and then we take the square root of the area of ijk. that is, √-1 the imaginary unit. Clearly the full 4-S multiplication table for the "equal sign" invariant + and - unit count across the equal sign for Equation 1 is a transcendent dimensional process with "a unit of the square root of the area u² (see below)"; we will call the invariant unit of the times table a "sec"" for the area of the total summation of the area of the four squares of space-time. Then the 5-d hypotenuse cut would have a pure number a "transcendental" 5-d number c=i and it's "4-d length" of the times table is i(sec). The full 4-S sign multiplication times table used for how the LHS and RHS signs of the area u² common area behave across the equal sign, are;

same signs on the LHS and RHS give +ve while different signs on the RHS and LHS give -ve.

Or the appearance of the bridge (common area) across the equal sign is in units of -- +i and -i -- that is how we cross the equal sign using the area of u² on the LHS and using the area of u² on the RHS.

Gary said in my comments

You have some interesting ideas but they are very speculative. Essay contests such as this are a good place to present such ideas:-)

I don't think you can set i=c or i=h but I do think you can construct something similar to the following:PSI = exp(omega) = sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] + (v/c)i

Then for v=c, PSI=i. I looked at your work instead, to see how you bridged with a common 5-d length (of the square root of f²) the areas on both sides of the equal sign. Your method mixes lengths with areas across the equal sign. While in the full 4-S, it is the four sums of +i and -i that are the "invariant count" lengths of the area u². The hypotenuse of the area geometry of f² is an invariant 5-d length "f" which isn't an area on the LHS.

=======================================================

Hello Edwin,

Thank you for your comments on my essay and apparent rating of 7, it's only the second rating I've had - and thanks for saying you enjoyed reading it immensely, and that it deserves to be doing better than it is.

I'm glad we both think (the apparent flow of) time is not emergent, as the 2015 experiment I've outlined makes it harder to take that view. Although it needs reproducing, the experiment had press coverage at the time, as it showed for the first time that the world at the quantum scale is not reversible, but is subject to entropy, just as in the large-scale world. It leaves time very much unexplained.

I've seen quite a few attempts to explain the direction of time, where the given cause turns out to be a process, needing another flow of time underneath it. I don't know about your idea that the direction of time arises from the self-interaction of the gravitational field, but any forces (or pseudo forces) are at risk of needing time already in place, if they are to have what we call effects - just as cause and effect implies a time sequence.

Good luck, best regards,

Jonathan

    Hi Jonathan,

    You say, "I've seen quite a few attempts to explain the direction of time, where the given cause turns out to be a process, needing another flow of time underneath it. I don't know about your idea that the direction of time arises from the self-interaction of the gravitational field"

    I just posted a variant of the following on Phil Gibbs page:

    At one point Phil suggests that "quantization as a sum over histories is more fundamental than particles or field or even time and space." What is history without time or path without space? He then asks if there is a fundamental law which is not derived from anything deeper? Well, if we assume that a law governs something, there must exist at least one thing. Since I cannot conceive of this one (and only) thing being a particle, I assume it's a field, or at least a continuum. Phil then says that such law must be as it is because it could not be any other way, and asks "Why would those answers be incomprehensible to us?"

    Conscious experience is our contact with the universe; Phil says "information is everywhere" crossing the universe. I prefer "energy is everywhere" crossing the universe. When energy triggers a change in structure (absorb the photon, switch a logic gate, ...) the structure is 'in'-formed and becomes a record (~bits of information). It has no meaning absent a codebook or context: "one if by land, two if by sea." Thus it's hard for me to find meaning in the statement: "the information in a wave function is conserved." Most wave functions describe situations in which energy is conserved, so in that sense "information" might be conserved. He notes we're dealing with idealizations. If information implies energy and change of structure, where is the energy of the wavefunction and what does it change? Phil notes that such "informative" 'records' are more real than the 'past'; "Our reality is what we experience."

    Phil then sets up the problem, noting that recursion can take us places independent of the starting point:

    "... we must define this recursion... in algebraic terms and see how the physics of space, time, and particles can emerge..."

    He notes this iteration will be algebraic without a Lagrangian, and conjectures that the holographic principle may argue for 'complete symmetry'. I believe one can formulate the holographic principle in terms of energy, with no mention of information. Would this imply such symmetry?

    Phil suggests a "free algebra" generated from a vector space V and says that "if it requires information to specify how it works then a theory can't be fundamental"; concluding by expecting to find symmetry in a pre-geometric meta-law that transcends space-time, taking a purely algebraic form, beyond which point it will be emergent.

    Jonathan, based on Phil's formulation of the problem, I suggest how this might work?

    I don't believe a 'lattice' can satisfy his requirements for 'fundamentalness', so I assume a continuum, f. "Pre-geometric" must mean there is only one such, else we would have two different things and can subtract f1 from f2 and begin geometric correlations between continuums (kind of like Einstein's inertial reference frames). So if there is only one continuum, f, it can only interact with itself, as there is nothing else to interact with! This provides a basic principle for the pre-geometric, primordial law, based on algebra only:

    The Principle of Self-interaction is that any operator O acting on the continuum f must be equivalent to the continuum f acting on itself, represented as

    Of = ff.

    This iteration is fundamental, not derived from anything deeper, and is infinitely recursive. One can solve this for characteristic features of the continuum, and the operator spectrum might determine the feature spectrum. Let one operator be the essential derivative d/dq and the second operator be the generalized derivative 'Del' = d/dp. [it's hard to find symbols that don't bring something to mind, so I've already biased you.]

    As it turns out we have two unique solutions corresponding to these two operators. For O = d/dq we find that f = 1/(-q) solves the algebraic equation, Of = ff, and for O = d/dp we find that f = 1/p solves Of = ff. We assume geometric algebra (Clifford/Hestenes) is our context. Therefore we need only interpret q and p. These may of course be anything we can get away with that agrees with our experience, but I believe the most fundamental (or at least the most useful) fundamental interpretation's are q = time t and p = spatial vector r.

    Jonathan, please note that there is only one solution to the self-interaction equation of the form 1/t, and that is 1/(-t). That is, if t is time, then only one 'direction' of time solves the self-interaction equation!

    Thus our Self-interaction Principle leads to a unidirectional time and a general 3D space. One feature of the continuum is the frequency f ~ 1/t and another feature is a 1/r spatial dependence, with appropriate gradient, ~1/r.r . All of this is easy to prove (except the identification of q with time and p with space) once one adds a 'connector' c ~ r/t then ccf is an acceleration and f is a frequency. The dimensions thus associated with f and f are those of the gravito-magnetic field: G ~ cc/r, C ~ -1/t --- acceleration and frequency. When one brings rotation into the picture the self-interaction equation generates a quantum solution, and the minus sign associated with the frequency yields a fundamental left-handedness such as that characterizing neutrinos and amino acids.

    The equations that govern these fields are in my essay's equation (1). A result of iteration is figure on page 12. Of course there's much more of interest than will fit into a comment. For example, the Self-interaction Principle leads to Newton's law, Einstein's equations, and the Klein-Gordon equation, for starters, when augmented by E = mcc. I do believe "we arrive at a final level where everything is possible and the whole theory is described with zero information."

    My very best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin Klingman,

    [My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First I will assess your essay, then discuss your conclusions. Positives:

    -- Wow, you know your targets well! I sort of kept hoping for Maxwell to drop by to, but it would have distracted Einstein from the main topic. I think the main reason that Einstein never modified SR after GR forced him back to the ether was , well... he couldn't quite figure out how to do it? You really need a more modern computer modeling concepts of how to handle binding times to implement the virtual frames with absolute fidelity, and that concept suite and was flatly not available to him. So ironically, he stayed block universe to keep SR happy, even as he defined a unique "ether slice" sequence that was curved but on average remained orthogonal to your universal simultaneous time.

    -- I like very much that you pulled out the GR ether connection. People still are shocked by that, and at the time Einstein's fellow physicists tried very hard to pretend Einstein never went back to the ether. There is an attraction in the mathematical symmetries of SR that is incredibly appealing to many folks, especially if you are mathematically inclined. The idea that such symmetries might be nothing more than virtual limits in a reality that like to fake people out does not appeal in the same way, unless you happen to be more computer-science-ish in mind set.

    -- You pull in lots and lot of really good, highly specific threads of though, though there are so many that a seriously deep look at them could take days or months (or years).

    -- Your conversation format is entertaining, though at times it makes it a bit difficult to recognize exactly what the main point is going to be.

    Negatives:

    -- You pull in lots and lot of really good, highly specific threads of though, though there are so many that a seriously deep look at them could take days or months (or years).

    -- Your conversation format is entertaining, though at times it makes it a bit difficult to recognize exactly what the main point is going to be.

    -- My standard complaint: The intent of the FQXi request as I read it was to write an essay on how to recognize a fundamental theory, rather than write an essay to provide a fundamental theory.

    --------------------

    Now, let's see if I understand your point (I may not!). When you end by saying:

    "the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity"

    I think you are saying that there exists a singular curved foliation of spacetime, which Einstein in his post-GR years would have called "the ether", in which all causality unfolds at the "same time" (e.g. as measured by a hypothetical solid sheet of tiny clocks all making synchronized hand-shake time measurements with their immediate neighbors).

    That is of course utterly heretical to SR perspectives, because it would make that single foliation absolutely unique and the only "real" source of causality. However, again, it is not even all that difficult from a computer simulation perspective to define structures in which the primary foliation creates asymmetric embedded virtual foliations -- other frames -- that internally look exactly like the primary frame though a combination of directionally-dependent early and late binding of causal events in the primary frame. In fact, you can do that so well that there is no way to distinguish internally between the cases... which is of course exactly what SR requires!

    Again, assuming that I'm even understanding you correctly, your frame of temporal simultaneity would almost certainly be the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) frame, the frame that has undergone the least number of acceleration-deceleration events over the history of the universe. As long as matter in that CMB frame remains unaccelerated, any other matter in the universe that "come to visit" the lazy CMB matter will be guaranteed to have less elapsed time; that is, the CMB frame will always have the fastest time in such comparisons, and no arrangement of other matter in the universe can overcome that speed advantage, no matter how you arrange the test.

    The CMB frame will also be the only frame that "sees" the real minimum energy of the universe as it looks out and assesses the total relativistic energy of the rest of the universe. Any frame moving relative to the CMB will see overly high energy totals.

    So, your "single simultaneous time" will both be the fastest possible time in the universe -- which just makes sense if it is the real driver of all causality in all possible frames -- and it will be the home of the only accurate "view" of the total mass-energy of the universe.

    Finally, I think a test for the existence of such a primary frame - that is, for your simultaneous-time ether foliation -- may in fact exist, but it will necessarily be a very subtle test. I brought this issue up in a comment under Del Santo (topic 3017).

      Dear Terry Bollinger,

      Thanks for your gracious comments. I'm pleased that you got so much out of it, although as you note, it could take a while to follow all the lines of thought. You're probably correct to criticize the essay for veering from the assigned topic. You actually do address the topic in specific manner in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, but many focus on generalities, and reading 200 such is painful to contemplate. FQXi is a unique forum, offering reasonable visibility, archival storage, and a very effective comments scheme that cross-fertilizes. Establishment physicists probably come here to win a few bucks, but those who left academia long ago, or are otherwise locked out of establishment journals, see a venue for their own theories, which as you have discovered, span a wide range. Some, taking advantage of feedback, improve their ideas year after year, and often twist their theme into the current essay topic.

      Your interpretation of my essay is essentially correct --- that all causality unfolds at the "same time" [as measured by perfect clocks, i.e. clocks not subject to local conditions.] Your use of 'curved' and 'space-time' are probably orthodox. Weinberg, Feynman, and others have derived GR from flat space, and I prefer flat space energy density distribution to curved geometry, although they are interchangeable in theory. Space-time as 4D is so misleading that I prefer 3D +1, as elaborated on in many of the above comments. The CMB approximates absolute space, and time is time - orthogonal to space. x,y,z can project onto each other, but time projects only onto itself.

      Your discussion of the CMB frame as the only frame that "sees" the minimum energy of the universe is well stated. My focus has been less global and more local in the sense that I wish to explain the muon, the global positioning system, Einstein's railway cars, and other specific phenomena relevant to SR. I view the entire 3D universe as existing "now", i.e. it is the same time everywhere in the universe. Messages from one part of the universe to another flow at the speed of light through gravity. Einstein and recently others postulate that the speed of light may vary as a function of strength of the gravitational field through which it propagates, but I am uncommitted on this idea. We do have proponents of 'block time' among our FQXi essayists, but, as you note, mine is not a block-time theory. Your statement that "single simultaneous time" will be the fastest possible time in the universe is compatible in a sense. In reality (according to my approach) all time is the same time and has the same "speed". Local clocks cannot measure time -- they measure oscillating systems whose oscillating frequency is a function of local energy, so that changes in frequency show up on clocks as "changes in time". But in fact there are no changes in time; time flows equably throughout the universe. I don't believe any other scheme could have endured for 14 billion years with time willy-nilly changing relative to all the moving parts.

      I will look at your test. I too, have a proposed test, and welcome others.

      I've read your essay and will comment on your page.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      Thank you. I think the concepts we use when we think about these things are so dependent on an implied flow of time, that it's hard to remove that. You mention 'action', as in 'interaction' or 'self-interaction' - to me you can't explain time with those concepts, because you need time already in place to use them, as they wouldn't exist. You say there's only one thing that exists, so it can only interact with itself, but if so, in some sense it has 'moving parts'.

      So it's hard to 'get underneath time' in order to do any physics and try to explain it, for instance with a mechanism, because it's hard to find a mechanism that would work at all - mechanisms need time if they are to work.

      And I think mathematical concepts are equally at risk of having this kind of problem, or more so, as they're often two steps away from what we need to get at, instead of one.

      I felt there were four or five main avenues for getting to a better understanding of time, and explored them while trying to write a book. The conclusion was that all of them, without exception, are blocked in some way. I then looked at the question of whether any of them might become unblocked if there was a fundamental change to the underlying assumptions, and found that one of them, and only one, had the possibility of becoming unblocked.

      I'm all for creative thinking on the subject, and don't want to sound otherwise, but I think the way people take time out of the mathematics, and feel they can move things around here and there, is often inappropriate. Incidentally, Huw Price, who takes absolutely the opposite view from me, is also very strict about removing a pre-existing flow of time from our thinking. But he does that for different reasons!

      Anyway, best regards,

      Jonathan

      Dear Edwin.

      Thank you for kindly comments

      I agree many points in your essay, concerning fundamental question, is very interesting as it gives rationally explanations that focus most imortart fundamental aspects of nature of the Gravity and light which I also have implications of 19th century's benefits of philosophy linked physics namely Classical Physics.

      "TK: No. I hope we can discuss the proposition that: all light propagates in local gravity. Photons have energy, hence mass, and bend in gravitational fields"

      It suggests that even photon mass was included the concept mass energy equivalence.

      Considering the points of your coments I will focus on it more and will discuss later.

      ". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, as described in equation 1 in my essay. You state that "strong and weak force are both a gravitational force." Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge, so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting nonlinear field. I do not believe the situation has been......"

      In fact this hypothesis is based on idea that is a collectively view " picture in mind" of all scientific theories and facts. Deeply thinking to many possible imaginations considering Nature's similarities and after choosing one rechecked and compared its relation to the facts. Since this Hypothesis is based on scientific ingredients it must agree/confirm all known facts and also recorrect it's interpretation or make predictions. By searching some parallel approaches in the contest I found many related in somehow but focusing deeply on specific aspect. In other words, I believe that all scientific facts are somehow right, no matter whether it's classical Physics or Quantum Mechanics, except of some fundamental interpretations.

      I think what is missing is only (interpretation) fundamental theory that compiles all scientific theories into same ground (same basis). Since this Hypothesis is a different view, it's basics assumption is that clustering process of the Nature began with absolutely one kind of extremely large quantity of small-sized particles (photon) and one kind of attraction force (Gravity) as it may agree with Big Bang event, There are some expected communication Challenges it may face and overcomes namely;

      Terminological metaphors may make term confussion unless redefinition, example; "Photon is particle that gives elementary charge (e) character and basic energy quanta (1eV) therefore its really the natures elementary particle" may sound quite strange.

      It may be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling. I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used.

      Under consideration of gravitational force as basic with categories;

      Linear interaction interactions: electrostatic force and planet's centrifugal force.

      Non liniear interactions: Orbiting object( charged vs non charged or magnetic non magnetic) influencing other external particles(electro, gravity, magnetic,........ Dynamics) Electromagnetic waves as Gravitational waves type (dynamics charged particle)

      and Spherical quantum modeling of charged/neutral magnetic.... and its detection system (giver and sensor) could be good, for studying and simulating Nature of particle clusters and related effects, such as Quantum correlation/monogamy, intermolecular forces, multi spatial dimensions string theory, I propose simplest octopole magnitetic cube like. Spherical clustered particles of rotating (dynamics). In other words spherical modelling of homogeneous spheres packed could reveal secrets and the beauty behind Physical science Mathematics. It would be necessary studying both matter formations and related effects and relationship between our number sequence, parity and quantum such as;

      Electron proton Neutron Neutronstar. Black hole.

      Pauli exclusion, Nuclear Magic numbers, DNA cell...

      Elementary quanta can be applied to al matter.

      We know necessary fundamental constants namely elementary energy E (1eV) for single elementary particle and speed of light (c) hence we can accurately calculate it's proportionality to any particle charged, neutral or both. The ratios of Energy and mass are exactly same, and no any other particle which can have such property.

      [math]\[n\frac {M_{earth}}{m_{photon}}=\frac {E_{earth}}{e_{photon}}=\frac {Mc^{2}}{mc^{2}}=3.35*{10^{60}}n\][/math]

      Best regards

      Bashir

        Dear Jonathan,

        Thank you. I agree with you that the implied flow of time is inherent in 'change', and the only universe of interest is the one that is changing now. You are correct that 'interaction' contains "change", hence time, in its meaning. My comment to Phil was based on his desire for an algebraic 'meta-law' from which time and space 'emerge'. I began with such a general meta-law Of = ff where O and f are unspecified except that O 'operates on' f. Biased by this algebraic relation, we find that two solutions involve a 1D directed scalar and a 3D vector. I then choose these to be 'uni-directional time' and 'space'.

        I understand what you're trying to say, but to cast out 'moving parts' and replace it by 'mechanism' is not overly convincing. When you say your analysis led to "the possibility of becoming unblocked", it's not clear whether you solved this or just became convinced that a solution exists. If you solved it, I'd like to know the solution.

        In any case, it's been a pleasure discussing this topic with you.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Bashir,

        You say "I believe all scientific facts are somehow right, no matter whether it's classical physics or quantum mechanics, except [for] some fundamental interpretations."

        I believe you're saying that the same facts have different interpretations, and conflicts are resolvable by the correct theory. I tend to agree.

        You assume that nature began with photons and gravity, but Hertz's interpretation, reviewed in my essay, would view photons as 'disturbances' in the medium, in this case, gravity. If you begin with gravity, the photons will be included. If you redefine the photon to include charge, this is incompatible with Hertz's perspective.

        I did read your essay and comment on the difference in our models.

        Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Thanks Edwin,

        I've said that neither a mechanism, nor anything with moving parts, can explain time, or generate time, because those things need time to exist already. There are quite a few examples of attempts to explain time with concepts like those.

        Then there are attempts to explain the direction of time, by saying it emerges from thermodynamics. One of several problems with this is that emergence itself is a process, so it's another of those concepts that needs time if it's to function. And it's hard to make something that moves and changes emerge out of something that doesn't.

        Another problem with this is a point near the top of page 2 of my essay, which I'd say entirely removes emergent time, and shows it not to work. A third problem with emergent time is the 2015 experiment, which found entropy at the quantum scale, and time working just as it does in the large-scale world, showing the reversibility we imagined at that scale was false.

        Illusion time is also removed - emergent time is a wider set of possibilities, which includes illusion time, as illusion time would be an emergent effect.

        So this is part of a process of elimination I've done, where I think we can get clues about what time really IS like, by eliminating various pictures that it ISN'T like. That's what my book's about, and the essay is a potted version, with some of that process. And yes, I ruled out all avenues except one, which though also blocked, had a blockage that could be removed, with a change to the underlying assumptions. Then, exploring that particular avenue, and the solution it offers, you get the change to the assumptions that it leads to, and selects out of many possibilities.

        Yes, good discussing these things with you, best regards,

        Jonathan

        Edwin Eugene,

        You had me at Einstein, until you went all Newton on me!

        Find a perfect clock in my essay.

        Nevertheless, decent score. :-)

        All best,

        Tom

          Tom,

          Sorry you knocked me down thinking I presented Newton. Newton had 'action-at-a-distance', which you will not find in my equations. Indeed, one can derive Einstein's field equations via iteration on the 'weak field equations' (although a geometric algebra approach makes absolutely no mention of field strength, so I interpret the equations as valid for any strength.)

          I will re-read your essay and try to comment meaningfully.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Edwin Eugene,

          I like the way that you present your ideas in terms of a posthumous discussion of physicist. It is fun to read, and you explain some concepts really well.

          However, I disagree with your conclusions. In particular, what seems decisive to me is how you would answer the following question: does your "local gravity as ether" theory make any concrete experimental predictions that DIFFER from the predictions of GR?

          If the answer is "no", then it is simply a matter of taste whether one would like to adopt Einstein's formulation or yours. I would say that it's folklore among physicists that the gravitational field can, in some sense, be seen as some kind of "ether" if one really wants to. It is just that one doesn't gain anything from doing so.

          But if the answer is "yes", then you should simply propose an experiment that decides between the two theories. How you feel about GR's and SR's different "time dimensions" (the word is simply chosen by you to make it sound implausible) is then completely irrelevant. The result will then either be a falsification of your approach or the Nobel prize for you.

          Best regards,

          Markus

            Edwin Eugene,

            I didn't mean to knock you down. Sorry if I did.

            In any case, it's a matter of concept, not equations. "Time flows equably ..." is Newtonian. "the fundamental nature of time as universal simultaneity" is equivalent to Newton, nonlocal or not.

            Einstein/Lorentz time dilation and length contraction are physically real, because spacetime is physically real, and they manifest locally because they are measured relative to local conditions. This does nothing to Einstein's perfect clock, however, which is synchronized with the initial condition and continuing to any later time.

            Best,

            Tom

            Tom,

            You state your beliefs clearly, but you don't address any arguments in my essay. Obviously before writing this essay I understood that it would step on many's beliefs. That's just the way it goes.

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman